1. I. Counsel for the petitioner would like to file some documents. The Additional Advocate-General may also file documents relevant to the case. By adjourned to 18-3-1996.
2. By this application the petitioners seek to restrain respondents from implementing notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of lands in question required for remodelling of the Nara Canal.
2. The first contention of Mr. Gul Bahar Korai, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioners' lands are mala fide and by way of political victimisation as the petitioners belong to the opposition. This allegation is hardly tenable, as admittedly large areas of land belonging to scores of persons have been acquired for the aforesaid project and petitioners' lands form a small portion of these.
3. The next contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the notification issued under section 4 was invalid as according to him the Collector failed to cause public notice of the substance of the notification published under sub--section (1) of section 4 at convenient places in the locality. The Additional Advocate-General on instructions from respondent No.4, the Land Acquisition Officer, who is present in Court denies the allegation and categorically state that the public notice contemplated in subsection (1) of section 4 had duly been given but as no such objection had earlier been taken copies of these have not been produced. We also find from the petition that nowhere this ground has been taken by the petitioners. As such we consider that it is not now open to the petitioners to take this ground at this stage of hearing.
4. It was then submitted that the notice given to the petitioners under section 9 of the aforesaid Act was invalid as the provisions of earlier section 8 requiring the marking of the land had not been complied. This allegation too- has been denied by respondent No.4. He submits that after the issuance of first notification under section 4 of the Act land in question was duly marked and measured and sketch thereof was prepared and it was in consequence of such measurement and marking that some are of the land originally notified in the notification under section 4 was deleted in the subsequent revised notification issued under section 4. It is not denied that even some of the petitioners' land originally included in the first notification under section 4 was subsequently omitted. This contention too has no force. A plain reading of section 8 would show that it requires marking out of the land only if the same has not already been marked out under section 4 but here it would appear from the schedule of land attached to the notification under section 6 that the land to be acquired had been duly measured and the area is mentioned. Similarly a plan of the land also appears to have been drawn out as would seem from para. 8 of the notification. It was also contended by the Additional Advocate-General that the exercise of marking and measuring the land and preparing its sketch had been carried out after the issuance of the first notification under section 4 as is contemplated by that section.
5. It was lastly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that in respect of some of the lands being claimed by the petitioners three Constitutional petitions being Constitutional Petition No.D-608 of 1994, 568 of 1994 and 637 of 1994 are pending in this Court and in those petitions this Court has already ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of land involved in these petitions.
6. Additional Advocate-General's reply to this submission is that the respondents would apply for necessary modification of the restraining order passed in those petitions and that they would not take any steps which may be violative of the status quo orders in operation in those petitions. Since we do not have those petitions before us we would not like to make any comment on the submission made by the counsel.
7. From the comments and counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it appears that the purpose of remodelling of Nara Canal is to increase its capacity from 12,500 cusecs to 20,000 cusecs. The project was conceived long time back and is being funded by International Development Authority and the World Bank. It is internationally known as L.B.O.D. Stage I Project. The project envisages remodelling of the Nara Canal for 45 miles at a cost of 5500 million rupees being provided by World Bank and other foreign agencies and an amount of 2300 million rupees has already been spent on, the project. The project stretches from Rohri to Sanghar and hundreds of acres of P land have, been acquired for the project. It is submitted by the Additional Advocate- General that any delay in the construction of the project would entail the risk of cancellation of the loan. He has produced document to show that World Bank Team will be visiting the project for several dates commencing from 4-3-1996.
8. Apart front the important and sensitive nature of the project as pointed out by the Additional Advocate-General and the respondents present we are of the view that the petitioners' counsel has not been able to point out any Illegality in the actions taken by the respondents for acquisition of the lands in question. Prima facie it appears that the notifications issued under the hand Acquisition not are valid and In accordance with law. As such we find no merit in this application which we dismiss. Ad Interim order of status quo passed earlier is vacated.
9. Any observation made in this order touching the merits of the case or involving interpretation of document or provision of law is only tentative for the purposes of this application and would have no bearing on the final determination of the case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.